Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery in Connecticut

What Is a Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery?

Background

“[T]he primary purpose of a sanction for violation of a discovery order is to ensure that the [offended party's] rights are protected, not to exact punishment on [the offending party] for its allegedly improper conduct.” (Usowski v. Jacobson (2003) 267 Conn. 73, 85 citing State v. Respass (2000) 256 Conn. 164, 186.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Under Millbrook Owners Assn. v. Hamilton Standard “in order for a trial court's order of sanctions for violation of a discovery order to withstand scrutiny, three requirements must be met.” (Millbrook Owners Assn. v. Hamilton Standard (2001) 257 Conn. 1, 17-18.)

The requirements are as follows:

“First: the order to be complied with must be reasonably clear. In this connection, however, we also state that even an order that does not meet this standard may form the basis of a sanction if the record establishes that, notwithstanding the lack of such clarity, the party sanctioned in fact understood the trial court's intended meaning. This requirement poses a legal question that we will review do novo.”

“Second: the record must establish that the order was in fact violated. This requirement poses a question of fact that we will review using a clearly erroneous standard of review.”

“Third: the sanction imposed must be proportional to the violation. This requirement poses a question of the discretion of the trial court that we will review for abuse of that discretion.”

(Id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The determinative question for an appellate court is not whether it would have imposed a similar sanction but whether the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did given the facts presented. Never will the case on appeal look as it does to a [trial court] ... faced with the need to impose reasonable bounds and order on discovery.” (Usowski v. Jacobson (2003) 267 Conn. 73, 85 quoting Millbrook Owners Assn., Inc. v. Hamilton Standard, supra, 257 Conn. 15-16.)

The Court’s Decision

The trial court has discretion to impose sanctions on parties who fail to answer interrogatories requesting disclosure of any expert witness the parties intend to call. (See, Practice Book 231.) The sanctions imposed may include exclusion of any expert testimony at trial. (Practice Book 231(d); Separack v. Solaz (1989) 17 Conn. App. 684, 693; Perez v. Mount Sinai Hospital (1986) 7 Conn. App. 514, 518.)

“[I]n order to determine whether the sanction of a nonsuit was a proper exercise of discretion in [a particular] case, [the reviewing court] must determine the factual basis on which the trial court relied when imposing the sanction.” (Ridgaway v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. (2018) 328 Conn. 60, 76-77 citing Millbrook , supra, 257 Conn. at 15 [whether nonsuit was abuse of discretion based on whether “the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did given the facts presented” [internal quotation marks omitted].)

Documents for Motion for Sanctions—Failure to Comply with Discovery in Connecticut

Sort By

VAUGHAN, LANCE v. GARGONE, WILLIAM Et Al document preview

ORDER RESULT: Granted 5/6/2024 HON ELIZABETH STEWART

1 page

ORDER 438580 DOCKET NO: NNHCV236133189S SUPERIOR COURT VAUGHAN, LANCE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN V. AT NEW HAVEN GARGONE, WILLIAM Et Al 5/6/2024 …